ArticleEmergency radiology2025
Deep learning reconstruction enhances image quality in contrast-enhanced CT venography for deep vein thrombosis.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Learning-Based Image Reconstruction in Ultra-High-Resolution CT Venography for Improved Visualization of Cerebral Venous Drainage.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Improved delineation of the cystic artery using super-resolution deep learning reconstruction in contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance and image quality of deep learning reconstruction (DLR) with hybrid iterative reconstruction (Hybrid IR) and filtered back projection (FBP) in contrast-enhanced CT venography for deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 51 patients who underwent lower limb CT venography, including 20 with DVT lesions and 31 without DVT lesions. CT images were reconstructed using DLR, Hybrid IR, and FBP. Quantitative image quality metrics, such as contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and image noise, were measured. Three radiologists independently assessed DVT lesion detection, depiction of DVT lesions and normal structures, subjective image noise, artifacts, and overall image quality using scoring systems. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using sensitivity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared the results for continuous variables and ordinal scales, respectively, between DLR and Hybrid IR as well as between DLR and FBP.
resultsDLR significantly improved CNR and reduced image noise compared to Hybrid IR and FBP (p < 0.001). AUC and sensitivity for DVT detection were not statistically different across reconstruction methods. Two readers reported improved lesion visualization with DLR. DLR was also rated superior in image quality, normal structure depiction, and noise suppression by all readers (p < 0.001).
conclusionsDLR enhances image quality and anatomical clarity in CT venography. These findings support the utility of DLR in improving diagnostic confidence and image interpretability in DVT assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.